After Criticism, the Administration Is Praised for Final Rules on Education Grants
Summary:
Obama has proposed a "Race to the Top" program, in which states can receive grants for improving their education. In all, there is $4 billion that can be given to schools. By mid-January applications must be completed in order to compete for the grants. The applications are judged based off a 500 point award system. Points are distributed in the following manner: 125 for having a detailed agenda of change, 70 for creating higher standards and higher quality tests, 47 for making computerized systems that track students' progress, 138 for recruiting quality teachers, 50 for turning around failing school, 40 for the growth of charter schools, and 30 for other miscellaneous changes. The majority of points are focused on "rewarding for work on new standardized tests". States will receive money based on their size, meaning that the four largest states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida, will be able to receive between $350-$700 million.
Reaction:
I think the "Race to the Top" program is a positive idea for the education system. I like the fact that states are required to put a lot of work into their applications, and money is not simply going to be handed over to them. Hopefully this will lead to real changes taking place in school systems. Also, the largest determining factor in the application is changing standardized tests. This includes improving their quality and holding students to higher standards. I think this is an incentive for schools in many ways. Schools always need more money. If they really want to receive this grant they will find a way to instill more drive in their students. Better performance on standardized tests will lead to more money for the school, and an overall better education in the long run.
Should SAT scores still be required for colleges? Many schools are saying no. Paul Wellstone, a U.S. Senator, fights against standardized testing. When he took the SATs he only received 800 out of 1,600, yet look what he as accomplished today. More colleges are deciding to abandon SAT scores and base admittance off of class rank. This upcoming fall, 280 colleges will not use the SATs. Collegeboard argues that the SATs are important because it helps to cut out grade inflation from high schools.
Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania stopped requiring SATs in 1997. Last year, 80% of students still decided to submit their scores. Their average score was 1,183. Non-submitters averaged only around 964. However, after the first year at the college, the non-submitters received only 1/3 of a letter grade lower than the SAT submitters. Overall, schools that rely on SATs are discouraging prospective students who think they are not qualified or that do not test well.
Reaction:
This article shows that many people are starting to rely less and less on standardized tests, including SATs. Standardized tests only measure a person's intelligence in certain refined areas. Above all, many believe that the SATs evaluate your test taking abilities, and not even your knowledge of the information. The fact that many colleges and universities are no longer using the SATs as a requirement to apply to their school is a big statement. If schools do not look at these scores, students have absolutely no incentive to take them in the first place. Also, Senator Wellstone stands as an example for students to not bother with these tests. The number that students receive on this test seems like a life-or-death situation at the time. In reality, this number means nothing in their actual life and they can still succeed without them.
Many people are having controversial feelings about Obama’s merit pay plan. It has not exactly been specified will teachers be paid more for “hard-to-staff” schools, areas where there are shortages, mentoring other teachers, or teaching longer days? For the most part, the merit pay will go to teachers based off their students’ test scores. In essence, this would be a reward for better teaching. One woman, Diane, thinks this is a bad idea and it will cause many issues. First off, teachers will only be teaching what is required on standardized tests, which will limit the curriculum. Second, this will lead to “gaming the system” and cheating. Teachers may exclude low-performing students’ scores in order to receive more money. Third, this is inaccurate because many test scores are flawed due to statistical errors and measurement errors. Fourth, the merit pay system is not fair for all teachers, because it mainly applies to reading and math and excludes other departments. Fifth, there are many outside factors that can affect students’ scores, such as motivation, weather, and distraction. Lastly, the time of year the tests are given could have an impact on results.
Overall, Diane believes that this will not help schools, and it may end up hurting them. A program like this was used in Manhattan. Merit pay was applied to 200 New York City schools and there have yet to be positive results. In all this will probably hurt the education system because important subjects are going to be left out of the curriculum.
Reaction:
I think there are positive and negative aspects to merit pay. I think it will definitely work as an incentive for teachers. I believe that all teachers want their students to succeed, sometimes they just have difficult students. If they will receive more money for increasing these students' abilities, I am sure they will find new ways to get through to their students. Also, I think if a teacher is doing exceptional work in their field they deserve the extra bonus money. I can also see how the merit pay has downsides. There probably will be some teachers who are going to focus on the bear minimum of material that they know is going to be on standardized tests. Even if test results increase, this isn't showing an increase in knowledge among students. Teachers now would be playing the "game of school" and the students would suffer because of it. Also, the merit pay isn't necessarily fair to all teachers. In my high school, as well as in many others, our standardized tests contained only Math and English. Therefore all the teachers who teach in any other subject are not eligible to receive more money for their work. In the end merit pay may raise test scores across the nation, but a less intelligent generation will probably be the ultimate result.
ASCD's 2008 Legislative Agenda: Doing What Works, Transforming What Doesn't
Summary:
Since 2003, many Americans have been unhappy with the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB bases student achievements on standardized tests they take grades 3-8 on reading and math, and a science test taken in high school. People feel it is unfair to have students defined just by standardized tests scores and there are many changes that are planned to be made for NCLB. First off, there should be multiple indicators of achievements for students, including growth charts, essays, and portfolios, along with the standardized tests. Also, schools that have target student subgroups that need improvements should be addressed directly and given the necesaary resources that they need. Lastly, teaching itself needs to be improved. There needs to be enhanced teaching preparation, better recruitment, and more merit pay systems for high-performing teachers in high-need areas. If these changes are made, NCLB will provide a better foundation for America's children.
Reaction:
I think a very important aspect of these reformations is having multiple indicators of achievement. It doesn't make sense to label students by standardized tests alone. Some children are simply bad test takers and other areas of their academics can more appropriately show their levels of achievement. Also, because there are hardly any incentives for students to do well on standardized tests, I think many intelligent students score low just because they don't care about the test. This ends up creating inaccurate results as to how students are truly doing in school.
Testing in schools: Should students be tested annually?
Should standardized tests be used to measure school performance?
Summary:
Recently there have been more critics to the idea of standardized testing. These tests are used annually in order to measure schools' and students' yearly performances. However, this is inaccurate and standardized tests were never designed for this purpose. Many think that these tests should be used with a mix of other work done by students in order to get a real idea of how students are performing. As is, standardized tests only measure a small piece of what students are learning. Also, this testing is virtually ineffective. States can test students every year but if they aren't using a good test design than the results are pointless. Many states simply buy the cheapest exams they can, and this makes for poor comparison among other states. There are still a few supporters of standardized tests. They think it is necessary to compare how a student and school perform from year to year, and they believe standardized tests are the way to do it. Overall, this is an established and accepted way to show schools' accountability, so it will remain until a better way is found.
Reaction:
Students and teachers will have zero incentives for standardized tests if many people believe they are actually pointless. These assessments were not created for the purpose of comparing schools and students across the nation, so why are they being used like that? Students will have no drive to do well on these annual exams, especially knowing that they really are overall inaccurate and useless for them. If these tests scores, however, were used and combined with other work they do throughout the year, they may pay more attention to how they perform on them. Students do not want to do work that will no benefit them in anyway; this is usually known as busy work. If the states want to get real results out their students they need to assess them on something that is actually meaningful.
After Criticism, the Administration Is Praised for Final Rules on Education Grants
Summary:
Obama has proposed a "Race to the Top" program, in which states can receive grants for improving their education. In all, there is $4 billion that can be given to schools. By mid-January applications must be completed in order to compete for the grants. The applications are judged based off a 500 point award system. Points are distributed in the following manner: 125 for having a detailed agenda of change, 70 for creating higher standards and higher quality tests, 47 for making computerized systems that track students' progress, 138 for recruiting quality teachers, 50 for turning around failing school, 40 for the growth of charter schools, and 30 for other miscellaneous changes. The majority of points are focused on "rewarding for work on new standardized tests". States will receive money based on their size, meaning that the four largest states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida, will be able to receive between $350-$700 million.
Reaction:
I think the "Race to the Top" program is a positive idea for the education system. I like the fact that states are required to put a lot of work into their applications, and money is not simply going to be handed over to them. Hopefully this will lead to real changes taking place in school systems. Also, the largest determining factor in the application is changing standardized tests. This includes improving their quality and holding students to higher standards. I think this is an incentive for schools in many ways. Schools always need more money. If they really want to receive this grant they will find a way to instill more drive in their students. Better performance on standardized tests will lead to more money for the school, and an overall better education in the long run.
Dillon, S. (2009, November 12). After Criticism, the Administration Is Praised for Final Rules on Education Grants. The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/education/12educ.html?sq=standardized%20tests&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=8&adxnnlx=1258927288-DoIAx0MTRb9PYSLw9bYWng.
School Testing: No SAT Scores Required
Summary:
Should SAT scores still be required for colleges? Many schools are saying no. Paul Wellstone, a U.S. Senator, fights against standardized testing. When he took the SATs he only received 800 out of 1,600, yet look what he as accomplished today. More colleges are deciding to abandon SAT scores and base admittance off of class rank. This upcoming fall, 280 colleges will not use the SATs. Collegeboard argues that the SATs are important because it helps to cut out grade inflation from high schools.
Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania stopped requiring SATs in 1997. Last year, 80% of students still decided to submit their scores. Their average score was 1,183. Non-submitters averaged only around 964. However, after the first year at the college, the non-submitters received only 1/3 of a letter grade lower than the SAT submitters. Overall, schools that rely on SATs are discouraging prospective students who think they are not qualified or that do not test well.
Reaction:
This article shows that many people are starting to rely less and less on standardized tests, including SATs. Standardized tests only measure a person's intelligence in certain refined areas. Above all, many believe that the SATs evaluate your test taking abilities, and not even your knowledge of the information. The fact that many colleges and universities are no longer using the SATs as a requirement to apply to their school is a big statement. If schools do not look at these scores, students have absolutely no incentive to take them in the first place. Also, Senator Wellstone stands as an example for students to not bother with these tests. The number that students receive on this test seems like a life-or-death situation at the time. In reality, this number means nothing in their actual life and they can still succeed without them.
Goldstein, A. B. (2000, September 11). School Testing: No SAT Scores Required. Time. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997939,00.html.What's Wrong With Merit Pay?
Summary:
Many people are having controversial feelings about Obama’s merit pay plan. It has not exactly been specified will teachers be paid more for “hard-to-staff” schools, areas where there are shortages, mentoring other teachers, or teaching longer days? For the most part, the merit pay will go to teachers based off their students’ test scores. In essence, this would be a reward for better teaching. One woman, Diane, thinks this is a bad idea and it will cause many issues. First off, teachers will only be teaching what is required on standardized tests, which will limit the curriculum. Second, this will lead to “gaming the system” and cheating. Teachers may exclude low-performing students’ scores in order to receive more money. Third, this is inaccurate because many test scores are flawed due to statistical errors and measurement errors. Fourth, the merit pay system is not fair for all teachers, because it mainly applies to reading and math and excludes other departments. Fifth, there are many outside factors that can affect students’ scores, such as motivation, weather, and distraction. Lastly, the time of year the tests are given could have an impact on results.
Overall, Diane believes that this will not help schools, and it may end up hurting them. A program like this was used in Manhattan. Merit pay was applied to 200 New York City schools and there have yet to be positive results. In all this will probably hurt the education system because important subjects are going to be left out of the curriculum.
Reaction:
I think there are positive and negative aspects to merit pay. I think it will definitely work as an incentive for teachers. I believe that all teachers want their students to succeed, sometimes they just have difficult students. If they will receive more money for increasing these students' abilities, I am sure they will find new ways to get through to their students. Also, I think if a teacher is doing exceptional work in their field they deserve the extra bonus money.
I can also see how the merit pay has downsides. There probably will be some teachers who are going to focus on the bear minimum of material that they know is going to be on standardized tests. Even if test results increase, this isn't showing an increase in knowledge among students. Teachers now would be playing the "game of school" and the students would suffer because of it. Also, the merit pay isn't necessarily fair to all teachers. In my high school, as well as in many others, our standardized tests contained only Math and English. Therefore all the teachers who teach in any other subject are not eligible to receive more money for their work. In the end merit pay may raise test scores across the nation, but a less intelligent generation will probably be the ultimate result.
Diane. (2009, April 21). What's Wrong With Merit Pay? Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/04/whats_wrong_with_merit_pay.html.
ASCD's 2008 Legislative Agenda: Doing What Works, Transforming What Doesn't
Summary:
Since 2003, many Americans have been unhappy with the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB bases student achievements on standardized tests they take grades 3-8 on reading and math, and a science test taken in high school. People feel it is unfair to have students defined just by standardized tests scores and there are many changes that are planned to be made for NCLB. First off, there should be multiple indicators of achievements for students, including growth charts, essays, and portfolios, along with the standardized tests. Also, schools that have target student subgroups that need improvements should be addressed directly and given the necesaary resources that they need. Lastly, teaching itself needs to be improved. There needs to be enhanced teaching preparation, better recruitment, and more merit pay systems for high-performing teachers in high-need areas. If these changes are made, NCLB will provide a better foundation for America's children.
Reaction:
I think a very important aspect of these reformations is having multiple indicators of achievement. It doesn't make sense to label students by standardized tests alone. Some children are simply bad test takers and other areas of their academics can more appropriately show their levels of achievement. Also, because there are hardly any incentives for students to do well on standardized tests, I think many intelligent students score low just because they don't care about the test. This ends up creating inaccurate results as to how students are truly doing in school.
Gene R. Carter. (2008). Is It Good for the Kids? ASCD's 2008 Legistlative Agenda: Doing What Works, Transforming What Doesn't. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/news_media/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_Editorials/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_-_March_2008.aspx.
Testing in schools: Should students be tested annually?
Should standardized tests be used to measure school performance?
Summary:
Recently there have been more critics to the idea of standardized testing. These tests are used annually in order to measure schools' and students' yearly performances. However, this is inaccurate and standardized tests were never designed for this purpose. Many think that these tests should be used with a mix of other work done by students in order to get a real idea of how students are performing. As is, standardized tests only measure a small piece of what students are learning. Also, this testing is virtually ineffective. States can test students every year but if they aren't using a good test design than the results are pointless. Many states simply buy the cheapest exams they can, and this makes for poor comparison among other states. There are still a few supporters of standardized tests. They think it is necessary to compare how a student and school perform from year to year, and they believe standardized tests are the way to do it. Overall, this is an established and accepted way to show schools' accountability, so it will remain until a better way is found.
Reaction:
Students and teachers will have zero incentives for standardized tests if many people believe they are actually pointless. These assessments were not created for the purpose of comparing schools and students across the nation, so why are they being used like that? Students will have no drive to do well on these annual exams, especially knowing that they really are overall inaccurate and useless for them. If these tests scores, however, were used and combined with other work they do throughout the year, they may pay more attention to how they perform on them. Students do not want to do work that will no benefit them in anyway; this is usually known as busy work. If the states want to get real results out their students they need to assess them on something that is actually meaningful.
Kennth Jost. (2001). Testing in Schools: Should students be tested annually?, 11(15). Retrieved from http://0-library.cqpress.com.helin.uri.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001042000&type=hitlist&num=0.